A few weeks ago I wrote an article entitled: “To kill the Goose!” in this paper (The Anguillian). I was referring to the apparent lack of clear leadership and direction in our most important industry at this time. I made my presentation in the context of the large number of talented young people in our school system who are being prepared to take advantage of the jobs and business opportunities that should be the natural by-products of a well-managed tourism sector. It was my opinion that the manner in which things seemed to be going — we are heading for a crisis. And I summed it up in my last paragraph by saying: “The instability in the administration of tourism does not augur well for sustainability. Because it is the main driver of the economy we must be constantly trying to improve our image and increase our share of the tourism pie. Not only for ourselves but also for those fifth formers and preschoolers that are now being prepared to participate fully in the opportunities available in the sector. Why should we then allow petty politics to kill the goose that is laying the golden egg?”
As a former Minister of Tourism, I am fully aware of the differences of opinion that can exist among the various agencies and stakeholders in the industry, but there is absolutely no need to be openly confrontational to the extent that the entire system seems to be dysfunctional. Because of the importance of the industry to our economy, things should never reach to the point where there is a complete breakdown of communication, and where there is the stark appearance of a power struggle. Indeed, based on recent correspondence that has been going back and forth between the Ministry and the Tourist Board, it is clear that the entire dispute is leading away from a discussion on strategic approaches to an outright war of personalities. The unfortunate reality is that in such an environment the interest of the industry and Anguilla gets sidelined.
My greatest fears were realized, just over a week ago (April 07, 2014), when the Chief Minister sent a communiqué to the Anguilla Tourist Board (ATB) and the Director of Tourism. The communiqué made a number of sweeping statements and allegations that gave the clear impression that not only had things deteriorated between the Ministry and the ATB but also between our two external consultants, namely, Cheryl Andrews Marketing and the Britto Agency. It seemed obvious that the Government led by the Chief Minister, and the Parliamentary Secretary, were both in the midst of this dispute and appeared to be taking sides based on criteria that is unclear to most of the stakeholders and professionals in the industry with whom I have spoken. In this context, it is interesting to note that the Britto Agency is ahead of the Anguilla Tourist Board on the proposed hierarchy of accountability on external representation of Anguilla internationally – as well as on all major international and national events such as the Literary Festival, Festival del Mar, Moonsplash, Summer Carnival etc. There is also the newly established Oversight Committee for Tourism and International Representation (TIR), made up of “politically handpicked personalities”, that is now a part of the whole hierarchy of accountability and is also ahead of the ATB. And also very interesting is the fact that the technical officers in the Ministry of Tourism do not seem to feature in this chain of command at all.
The Chief Minister’s communiqué effectively took control of Tourism Marketing and Promotion out of the hands of the ATB; muzzled the ATB’s decision-making function; cut off funding to the Cheryl Andrews Marketing programs; placed the Britto Agency into a leadership position in the rebranding of Anguilla’s tourism and the oversight of all national and international events; and established a new link in the chain of command between the Ministry and the ATB, namely, the Oversight Committee (TIR). All these changes were made through directives from the Chief Minister on the basis of claims that the ATB was dysfunctional; irresponsible; and lacked accountability. The communiqué further indicated that with regard to the remedies being requested by the Chief Minister some were to be effective immediately and all others within 48 hours.
It was not surprising that within three days of the CM’s communiqué (April 10, 2014) the ATB responded. Their main claim was that much of what was written in the CM’s letter came as a result of “inaccurate and misguided” information. And, using a most surgical approach, the ATB provided proof of their contentions that the Chief Minister’s communiqué was based on inaccurate statements and mis-information. The ATB also pointed out the irony of the Chief Minister’s claim that the ATB were not being good stewards of taxpayers money, while he was in fact issuing a directive to “ring-fence” funds for the Britto Agency that could approach 50% of the overall marketing budget of the ATB. In other words, the Chief Minister’s directive was yet another example of the belief that the rules are for others and not for him or the Parliamentary Secretary.
The ATB’s response was widely copied among the decision-makers of the administration and, inevitably, inquiring minds will probably already have copies of their own. The ATB’s claim that the contents of the CM’s communiqué “could discredit the Board and undermine the integrity of the Directors” is a reasonable one. Yet, if the contents of the communiqué were in any ways accurate one could easily come to the conclusion that the Board was grossly insubordinate. However, I am sufficiently convinced by the Board’s response that there were breakdowns in communication on all sides. In this sense, I believe that both parties to this dispute could have settled many of the differences in a less confrontational manner. As I suggested, earlier, avoiding such situations could reduce the personality issues involved rather than allow them to be protracted into an outright battle based on issues irrelevant to the interest of Anguilla’s tourism sector. In the minds of many stakeholders there is a real concern that we have lost almost four years of developing and implementing a well-thought-out strategy for promoting our island, and right now this dispute can cause us to lose the benefit of funds already spent in many ongoing programs.
The question remains as to what will be the outcome of these issues that are now squarely in the public domain. Will there be yet another case of the Government being sued for their disregard for the contractual rights of companies and individuals whom they have engaged to provide services? How wide will be the public consultations on the global branding project conducted by the Britto Agency? What experience does the Britto Agency have as a Branding Consultancy? How long will the Oversight Committee of TIR be in place? Is it a temporary committee? What will be the purpose of the Cheryl Andrews Marketing Consultants if the CM’s directives continue to cut off the funding for their programs? Will the ATB have any real function given the curtailment of many of their statutory functions? Does anybody really care about the Sustainable Tourism Master Plan?
I was sitting quietly musing about this situation when a friend came by and joined me in my thoughts after reading the two letters. Then he jumped up straight and exclaimed: “Why is everybody afraid to talk about the four hundred pound tiger in the room? (Huh?) She seems to have her claws in all these things we talking about. And it look like she done pounce on key people in the AUM administration establishing she lair. So let me ask you dis question that I sure everybody tinking bout but dem fraid to ask : “How she get all dat power?”
